I first started writing about the American Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and its really toxic attitude to homosexuals three years ago. I meant to submit this final bit on the current RCP shortly after the last one (I guess we know why that free lancing gig didn’t work out for me hey?). I’ve been busy with many other things but the sad truth is I have actual tried to complete this piece half a dozen times only to scrap it all half way through.
The current official attitude of the RCP to homosexuals is detailed in the grandly titled “On the Position on Homosexuality in the New Draft Programme” or DP for short. This position paper was finished in 2001 and hasn’t been updated in the fifteen years since initial publication. The document is very long 34 A4 pages, but what does it actually say, well at the very end it says that homosexuals can now become members of the party. And I mean at the end it only comes up in the second to last section of the paper.
Quote:
Can homosexuals be progressive revolutionary allies and even revolutionary communists and members of the revolutionary vanguard party? The answer on both counts is yes.
So end of the story? Well if you’re an RCP member looking to defend its reputation yes it is, but the DP shows a few severe problems with this attempt to show that the party has really changed. And I’m going to briefly go over them.
The main issue is that the DP is dishonest. It doesn’t apologise for the really nasty stuff the party did to its own members before this change. Indeed it doesn’t acknowledge it even happened. The only mea culpa here is for the 1988 line on homosexuality. This is important because the 1988 line was considered a compromise line implying that its at least a little better than the previous positions. So all the DP is doing is making excuses for having a party position that in their words wasn’t correct. I eventually found copies of all the RCP positions on homosexuality (there were quite a few) thanks to a blogpost by a former RCP member who had drafted a few of them in his past. Its worth reading his account as it goes into detail about the attitude of the party leadership (AKA Bob Avakian). I’ve added the lines as an appendix at the bottom of the page.
The party’s position on the gay question and why it is imperative to solve it has gone through many permutations. In the seventies homosexuality was on the level of prostitution and drug addiction, and a bourgeois plot to enslave the masses. By 1988 the gays were supporting women’s oppression somehow. In 2001? Well according to every other section of the DP the Gays are still colluding in women’s oppression but now it’s not true of all of them. There are some gays and Bi’s who want to end all oppression and one way to tell the difference is whether or not they want to join the RCP.
Quote:
“The Party must constantly bring forward into its ranks those who dedicate themselves to the cause of the international proletarian revolution, who seriously take up the weapon of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism [MLM] and carry out the Party's line and tasks among the masses. The members the Party must attract are those whose dedication is not to narrow and personal interests, but to the historic mission of communism.”
The second to last section opens up membership of the party to homosexuals, the last section is an attempt to bury criticism of the party’s history with the LGBTQ crowd, most of the other sections though are written to try and make it look like the RCP was kinda right about the negative relationship between homosexuality and women oppression. I’m only going to quote just one example here, but I’m not kidding when I say the majority of the paragraphs in this 34 page document are like this.
Quote:
“Historically, lesbian relationships and networks have encouraged and provided support for some women to exist and function outside of traditional roles or as a safe haven from male/women relationships that have been physically or emotionally abusive. But while this may be an individual improvement for some women, it is also true that, as we pointed out in our 1988 article, the larger relations in society still get reflected in lesbian relations to one degree and in one way or another. And more fundamentally, the practice of lesbianism does not solve the overarching problem of the oppression of women as a whole, in U.S. society and throughout the world.”
This particular passage in a vacuum may seem a fairly blunt rebuttal to what’s called identity politics but the majority of the section and the rest of the DP is dedicated to reiterations on these two themes. Same sex couples are just as susceptible to societies ideology (though why this means they seem to exclusively be an obstacle to women’s liberation, rather aiding in all the other oppressions and exploitations of bourgeois society is not explained or even addressed) and that same sex couples don’t on their own represent a rejection of class based society. The last part is true, but that’s true many other things like heterosexual relationships that the RCP either has no problem with (there is no position on heterosexuality in the party’s history) or actively champions.
The repetition of this argument and the layout of the document is designed so that anyone wishing to know about the RCP’s policy on gay members has to read through its self-justification before it gets to the answer. This paper isn’t a product of self-criticism, it’s a compromise and attempt to save face. Any homosexual who attempts to join the party must do so having swallowed the party’s bizarre line that by existing as a homosexual they are probably participating in the oppression of women, and must prove themselves by forgiving the party for writing a bad article in the eighties that it still largely stands by and in general a strict adherence to party doctrines.
So in conclusion, the RCP is still homophobic, (incidentally the only time the word homophobia appears is in the title of a book cited in the footnotes) and unapologetic for its worst behaviour on this issue. It’s moved a little, but there’s merely because of the sustained opposition its received over the decades.
Appendix
From Programme And Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA (1975)
Socialist society will wipe out the decadence of capitalism in all spheres. Prostitution, drug addiction, homosexuality and other practices which bourgeois society breeds and the bourgeoisie promotes to degrade and enslave the masses of people, will be abolished. The prostitutes, drug addicts and others who are caught in these things will be re-educated to become productive members of society, with working class consciousness. The shame connected with these practices will be taken from the shoulders of these victims and the guilt will be placed where it belongs—on the bourgeoisie.
(page 43)
From New Programme And New Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (Draft for Discussion) (1980)
The twisted outgrowths of this society, such as pornography and prostitution, will be forcibly abolished right off the bat and their re-emergence will not be tolerated. As for the prostitutes and others victimized by this capitalist degeneracy, they will be given productive work, politically educated and freed from the immediate source of their oppression, while education will also be carried out broadly in society to expose capitalism as the source of this degradation and to remove the tendency to blame or look down on the victims.
As for homosexuality, this too, is a product of the decay of capitalism, especially of the increased ripping apart of the family, which is inevitably taking place under capitalist conditions, especially as it sinks into deeper crisis. In particular it stems from the distorted, oppressive man-woman relations capitalism produces. Once the proletariat is in power, no one will be discriminated against in jobs, housing and the like merely on the basis of being a homosexual. But at the same time education will be conducted throughout society on the ideology behind homosexuality and its material roots in capitalist society, and struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals.
(page 67)
From New Programme And New Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (1981)
The twisted outgrowths of this society, such as pornography and prostitution, will be forcibly abolished right off the bat and their re-emergence not tolerated. As for the prostitutes and others victimized by this capitalist degeneracy, they will be given productive work, politically educated and freed from the immediate source of their oppression, while education will also be carried out broadly in society to expose capitalism as the source of this degradation and to remove the tendency to blame or look down on the victims.
As for homosexuality, this too, is perpetuated and fostered by the decay of capitalism, especially as it sinks into deeper crisis. This is particularly the case because of the distorted, oppressive man-woman relations capitalism promotes. Once the proletariat is in power, no one will be discriminated against in jobs, housing and the like merely on the basis of being a homosexual. But at the same time education will be conducted throughout society on the ideology behind homosexuality and its material roots in exploiting society, and struggle will be waged to eliminate it and reform homosexuals.
(page 77)
On the Question of Homosexuality and the Emancipation of Women (1988)
A sixteen page article from Issue #56 of Revolution Magazine that became the RCP's position on homosexuality until 2001. The article was and still is described by the RCP as a compromise, it ditched most of the old arguments for the hostility of the party, and made the claim that homosexuality was an obstacle to the liberation of women the main plank. This is still the main part of the RCP's current position on Homosexuality.
- Reddebrek's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Can comment on articles and discussions
Comments
So, it's definitely a downer how many groups and individuals had/have shit ideas about LGBTQ issues, but this
could've been written by any conservative religious group only by replacing bourgeoisie with Satan and working class consciousness with Salvation.
Back in Norway, in the early 90s when I first got involved with politics, these sorts of views were not uncommon among some on the authoritarian left. Homosexuality, "deviant sexual acts" (bdsm), prostitution, drug use etc. were all seen as bourgeois diseases that would simply disappear come communism. I doubt, however, that such views are that common any more.
Terrible stuff. Anyone know how many members the RCP has nowadays?
Thank you for the comments, its good finally get this finished, some of the early drafts were over 30 pages long because I wanted to be thorough and virtually every paragraph has something questionable in it. For example it equates homosexuality with pederasty not once but twice. And those are the only examples of "same sex tolerant societies" the paper mentions, and the only concrete examples, of any of its assertions. The rest of the time it talks about the gays it does so in a vague series of stereotypes, about cruising.
The RCP's attitudes to homosexuality were fairly typical at the time of the groups founding in 1973. Their first anti gay publication quotes Mao on the subject, and the American SWP openly banned homosexuals from being members. The Sparts did allow gays to be members and had a paper commitment to Gay rights, but you couldn't be both openly gay and openly a member of the party at the same time. Party members could say attend a Gay demonstration but couldn't identify themselves as party members and vice versa.
What makes the RCP different from most of the others, is that it maintained this hostility for so long, and to the present day. They've officially removed the ban, but if you read the entire paper, they've done it in such a way that leaves them plenty of room to continue to exclude gays from joining. And their negative tone has changed from an absolute ALL Gays and Lesbians, to MOST, and the way you prove your one of the good ones is to make yourself an unquestioning tool of the party.
In the 80s Militant under junior Lenin Ted Grant had the "disease of capitalism" position. I was involved in a campaign to get local authorities to include lbgt in their equal opportunities employment policies. Tommy Sheridan would always force a gay Militant member to speak against us. He knew that the man did not agree with the line but this was a test of loyalty. A large group of their membership disagreed with granddad Grant and it was seen a vulnerability that other sects could exploit and cause splits and steal members. When Grant died they changed their position very quickly- and without any pretence of an explanation.
After a Labour Party Young Socialists meeting a group of Militant thugs attempted to queer bash me and a friend- we got away and to my amusement I met two of the perpetrators when I was out on the piss with the wildest of my mates a month or so later- we never beat them up (not my style) but we followed them from bar to bar taunting them.
I guess if you trawl the bottom of Bolshevik pond you may still find some such prehistoric creatures still lurking in the slime today.
Huh, I was under the impression that they had been one of the few 70s left groups to openly organize in the gay movement. I thought it was sort of their only redeeming factor.
So did I at first, but ex members from the period said the party had what was called "the closet rule"
Thats from the last chapter in the red closet, by a gay ex member of several Troskyist groups including the Sparts.
a collection of texts on the issue from the US ML scene: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/index.htm#gl
I am not a RCP member, I don't have any specific insight into the daily workings of the RCP, and I am not aware of the most recent official party line (past the early 2000's Draft).
However, I am aware of their history, the RCP's recent moving away and acknowledging of their homophobic past, and having seen members openly support and partake in struggles fighting back against homophobia and trans-discrimination. At least on a local level. Having been around and "co-organized" on a community level with RCP members and RCP associates, I can say that these RCP members and associates openly support and continue to fight along side people no matter their sexuality or gender-ing identity.
Though this is largely anecdotal evidence, I have discussed the new RCP draft that addresses homosexuality with RCP members, it seems to be an old position that is shamefully recognized as having had the wrong position by RCP members, and something the RCP wants to move past and get on the right side of the struggle without much more discussion on it. I don't think you will get much an apology or a down on bended knee self lashing from any RCP member, not their style.
As the article linked above, here is the new official and long winded RCP position on sexuality which pretty much admits they had a strange view and have since changed position (perhaps an even stranger manner in which to change a position);
http://revcom.us/margorp/homosexuality.htm
There is a long history within many leftist groups, with a history stretching back past the 1990s, that have some fucked up analysis hidden in their closets. Not to defend the old RCP position, no defense at all, but the old position has given way to a new RCP position and the actions of its members, some members at least, shows that the RCP no longer upholds those old phobic views. Since the RCP is a very top-down organization, I would imagine if local RCP activists are openly criticizing their old position, it has been handed down from above and been OKed by the leadership.
I think that the more general critique of the RCP is always more fitting, rather than getting deep into the weeds of their ideology, or rehashing the old position since a new position has come into existence.
The RCP is a rigid classic Leninist party, with Avakian at the top, the ideological leader, which makes all members more or less ideologically subservient to whatever Avakian's position currently is (homophobic or otherwise). This throwback to Stalin and Mao's "cult of personality" manner of running a communist party is what is generally wrong with the RCP or any communist party/organization still running with the "Lenin-Stalin-Maoist" model. It's a dated concept and allows for dated ideology and political positions to remain entrenched within a party/organization well past any debatable relevance (party organization, not views on sexuality). The position that Avakian tends to take on issues comes from oracle like reading of old books and conjuring by Avakain.
The RCP seems to have shifted on their old position and adopted a new position on sexuality and gender identity, and good for them. Welcome to the 20th century (now in the 21st century).
As for the number of members, the RCP is a classic 1960/70s throwback with cadres and tight-lipped members not discussing the party size. There tends to be no open discussion of membership or party size, which is basically the standard position taken by any half-serious organization. But like most Leninist organizations with their roots in the 1960/70s, their relevance and size tend to vary depending on what current world political events and protest movements are occurring in the US and Europe. Like any other communist/socialist alphabet named organization, the RCP tends to exist in American college towns and big cities. I would imagine a few hundred people across the entire US and interested associates making up the bulk of the RCP's people on the ground, the RCP is at least a few thousand strong. Rumor has it, the RCP membership process is very lengthy and requires years of dedicated organizing with and for the RCP. The thing that makes the RCP relevant in the last few decades is their organizing around police brutality within the October 22 Coalition, being active and co-organizing across "race lines," and having some celebrity-pop-culture leftist academics associated with and supporting the RCP's organizing efforts.
I cannot remember if the RCP or the even more interesting Workers World Party were behind ANSWER coalition, but the RCP was popular during the Bush "Regime" Administration with the Not in My Name and Stop the Bush Regime national anti-war protest campaign. Again, the RCP's crown jewel, and rightly so, of achievement is the national October 22 Coalition against Police Brutality. The RCP seems to have always had a pretty solid presence in New York and Los Angeles. Unlike other American college town socialist organizations, the RCP seems to keep their political action in the streets rather than trying to attract college students, yet college students tend to be attracted to the RCP as well.
Also, I would imagine that the RCP's membership size has shrunk in the last two decades because recently, the RCP purged membership over the ideological split regarding the Maoist rebellion in Nepal. The RCP cleverly "opened a forum to discuss ideology, leadership, and Nepal" within the party and associates, and once strong positions were established, the non-Avakian factions were purged. The KASAMA project that aligned itself with the Maoists in Nepal and agreed with the loosing up on rigid ideological positions represented the re-organization of the purged ex-RCP membership and associates. Local ex-RCP associates who were viewed as supports of the Nine Letters critical of Avakian were blacklisted and pretty much ignored as counter-revolutionaries by local RCP members and associates. Sad, yet brilliant, never thought I would witness, from the outside, a communist party conspire against its own members in a manner harking back to the 1920/30s.
You will generally see RCP members either co-organizing or present at local anti-police brutality demonstrations or the big issue protest movement demonstrations selling the paper and trying to find new associates. As irrelevant as they are, they are committed, and still around due to passion and its members genuine want for revolution. Just not "our" revolution but their own.
I'm sorry Max but I don't believe you've actually read what I've written, which is generally bad form especially so when you're going to spend time replying at length.
???????? Yes and neither is it being honest, to reiterate the RCP has actively targeted and abused its own members over this policy, many of whom were vulnerable teens. They have never admitted that this happened or made even a token effort to account for it. Indeed they have been so silent on this that as far as I or anyone else knows it may still be occurring.
The most they admit to is publishing some "Incorrect" and "outdated" articles on the subject, and they don't even admit to the existence of all the articles they did publish on the subject. This is an obvious attempt by a damaged organisation to misrepresent its own history for those who don't already know it, and give its members something to use as a shield when they get flak.
The party will never get past its toxic history while still playing the denial game. I'm not asking them to self flagelate, I'm asking them to show their sincerity if they want others to believe them. You seem rather keen to make excuses for an organisation covering up an abuse scandal.
See right here, if you think the current position is worthy of praise then you either haven't read the thing or are just as guilty of very wonky ideas on the subject yourself. I find the entire paper to be still quite offensive in its assumptions and riddled with self justifications.I can't help but notice that every time someone like you cites the DP as a positive development they do so incredibly vaguely.
I am sorry if I came off in the manner, well the manner in which you seem to have picked up from my comment. Not my intention to present myself in such a manner attributed to my post. The RCP like most older socialist/communist organizations have many fucked up views lurking in their past and present, and to attack such organizations on single issue after single issue is not my preferred way in attacking/debating such organizations.
These groups act like politicians and re-create themselves thought out history and movements to appeal to "their" audience. Yes, there are fucked up views and strange, and yes offensive, views held by the RCP and organizations like it, but I argue that these organizations are fucked up due to their ideology, theory, and methodology, not due to single-issue fucked up-ness.
I am no defender of the RCP, I think their program and organization is bogus, but the local membership and individuals I have come into contact with, seem very "comfortable" with organizing with and for issues of gender and sexuality without any problem. These same people tend to simply state and re-state the simple slogans as any other radical organizations currently involved in the whatever current sexual or gender identity protest movements.
I don't organize with the RCP, they happen to be around like groups tend to be around events and local events that transpire, so its more happenstance than active participation. There is a singlemindedness of the organization, but as individuals, there is always cracks and a tendency of simplification on the local level by its members. All I am saying is that the local RCP members tend to behave and organize as any other organization on such issues and I see no real difference.
And yes, I think the RCP is "worthy of praise," to come from a strange Stalinist view that homosexuality is but a decadent bourgeois perversion to the long winded response that rambles on in the 2001 Draft that "OK's" a multitude of sexuality.
However, I think that the RCP or Avakian's strange "marxist" manner in reaching such a conclusion is very strange indeed. After all, the folly of such a view is the belief that every single issue has to be analyzed through the lens of "marxist analysis" and "class perspective" rather than acknowledging that class and Marxism plays a role in understanding but cannot define or completely understand all social, political, and economic interactions between people. Hence, my dislike for the RCP.
I agree with you but think, and wanted wanted to expand on "the real problem" with the RCP, and that is its manner of existing and organizing in general, not its past and current view on homosexuality or any other singular issue.
Again, I get that this article is specifically addressing a single issue and its history, and I agree with your ultimate conclusion.
My biggest concern with these types of organizations is their strange manner in coming up with any and all their conclusions. I admit, I like it when local members either justifiably ignore the strange conclusion of their leadership, ignore leadership, or simply act locally rather than act based on the centralized leader's direction (living contradictions within the organization, which expose the contradictions of their own views supposedly held).
And for the record, my own "wonky ideas" on sexuality and gender have shifted throughout my life. I used to uphold the old anarchist-feminist-radical-lesbian-separatist view that viewed queeer-theory and transgender identities as a liberal threat to radical leftist feminism. Today, however, haven seen the mistake and fucked up conclusions of my radical mentors, I have significantly changed my position.
That position being, queer or trans or whatever sexuality and whatever identity you subscribe to, feel, believe, want to be, born, or creative, its all good, I do not need a lengthy theoretical breakdown or perspective telling me what to think about other people. Peoples' identity are their own, and more power to them. Identity is about feeling as yourself, comfortable, and safe, not about convincing anyone about the new hip-theory of liberation.
Do you think that the RCP's view on homosexuality is their biggest problem or the manner in which they come to a conclusion on homosexuality or any issue for that matter?